So now you have to ask yourself. Why are YOUR ears so finely tuned to the "dog whistle" that you hear?

I heard "cultural problem" as the systemic corruption that sullies a liberal government to the extent that "Chicago Politics" is synonymous with "(D)irty as Fnck".

I guess that's what I get for thinking about what is really wrong with Chicago instead of sitting in my basement patrolling for racists.

"Political correctness" is, in my view, a catch-all way for people to imply things that would otherwise get you odd looks during polite conversation. If you wanted to address the "cultural problem" you'd address the culture problem, not claim that "political correctness" prevents you or others from doing so.

And yet, when he attempts to discuss the cultural issue, you accuse him of racism, thus proving his point.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:ArkAngel: skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

So you support banning cars?

Queue the "But.. but.. that's different" response.

Actually if you don't own a car, aren't you more likely to walk everywhere, which per mile is far more dangerous because of other people with cars?

udhq:BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number? Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group? How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year. Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.

*facepalm*

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be making an actual response to that one. It's kind of difficult to argue that 80,000 is smaller than 12,000.

It's also difficult to argue any kind of a correlation between these two numbers.

What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

ronaprhys:What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys". The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government. Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

udhq:ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys". The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government. Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

So the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, would be bad guys. Based on your statement, that would be true.

The fact is that, yes - firearms can function as a check on the power of the government without ever actually being used. Just their existence provides that check. That being said, if things got to be so shiatty that they were physically needed, then their use would be a good thing. That's because the level of oppression would be psychotic.

Now, to the last argument, I might take exception with that. One point to that - the fact that the mere potential for the presence of firearms can cause criminals to think twice. Note that just because the use wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same could be said of crime, especially if it's criminals preying on criminals. However, again, note that when restrictions were removed in areas, homicide rates dropped. That wouldn't be a direct DGU, but it's still a prevention.

As such, I'll stand by my statement that firearms are responsible for more crime prevention than actual crimes.

udhq:What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government. Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

Except that's how the country started, genius.

udhq:And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

Yeah, because we're not allowed to use any information that shows you to be incorrect.

mizchief:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too. I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one. Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.

The real problem is that there is no way to have any soft of meaningful gun control without outright banning all guns, including hunting, that solves the issue of criminals having guns.

If you ban them outright, then you can crack down on shooting ranges, people shooting on private property etc. where any gun shot is considered illegal and can be followed up on by police. By eliminating all recreational uses of guns you would only then limit their supply and ability for criminals to steal them.

However you would still have the problem of homemade guns given the demand they would get more plentiful and have better quality. And would also have importations issues, and that's assuming there are no corrupt policemen or manufacturers selling them on the side.

All in all in about 50 years you might be able to get enough off the streets to make a minor difference.

Then of course still nothing stopping people from killing each other the same ways they did thousands of years before guns were invented.

I'm an optimist, especially when it comes to unforeseen technology solving problems, and I can't see a feasible solution in the meantime involving more restrictions. Now I said feasible, so if I had it my way, I'd just ban the farking things and see how that goes.I do have a serious suggestion for Sandy Hook situations. That would be to encourage trampling drills. If you can condition people to swarm a shooter in a crowded space, you stop that kind of shiat real quickly. It's not worth injuring a half dozen to get trampled to death. I suppose that would just result in more Texas University/Beltway types being represented. But yeah, some future tech, that might be the ticket. And if not, the News Entertainment will continue.

ronaprhys:Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number? Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group? How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year. Just saying.

The DoJ won't get reports of every DGU. That's the problem. Which is why surveys are likely more reliable. Unfortunately, there's a huge variation in numbers based methodology and so forth.

And survey questions can be misleading, either unintentionally or intentionally to lead for certain answers. In Kleck's case, the questions could be open to broad interpretation by the responder, especially in regards to whether or not an actual crime was about to be committed. Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime. Or, it could have been used in a lesser "crime" that is not a serious crime like theft or assault. For example, the DGU could have been preventing from someone trespassing. Another possible example is an intruder who was not there. Someone might have been woken up by a sound at night, grabbed a gun and gone to look but no one was there. They could have reported that as a successful DGU. And while that is technically using a gun to prevent a crime, does it really belong in same classification of rape or attempted murder? Or what about against animals? The study did not specifically exclude the use of a gun against an animal so it is possible that someone may have reported such a use as a DGU. I am not saying that we should discredit Kleck's numbers because these things did happen, only that Kleck's survey was a bit vague.

Also, is 5,000 people really a good representation of the country? With only 5,000 people surveyed each GDU reported represented 52,000 people. If even 10 of those 48 who reported GDU could be "discredited" then that number drops to 2,000,000. Make it 19 and it is down to 1,500,000. Yeah, to me 5,000 people surveyed seems a bit too small to get an accurate sampling of the country as a hole, especially without knowing where this survey was conducted. Personally, I do not believe either Kleck or the DoJ.

Based on statistics, yes, 5K can be a significant enough number to accurately survey the country, within an acceptable level. Surveys use less all the time and we accept those results to be indicative of whatever they're showing.

That doesn't mean that any methodology won't have its shortcomings. Survey questions can be misleading, unreported DGUs can artificially lower the number, the mere knowledge that it's more likely that residents are armed can also (and has some evidence to back it) lower the rate by an indirect impact would also be left out. The simple fact is that firearms can be used to prevent crime and that it happens with significant frequency. I'd argue that this frequency is higher, by a large margin, than the use in crimes. Certainly much larger than the homicide rate.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing. But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers. The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number. Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers? I know that I would. But they did not explain how they weighted the answers. So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.

ronaprhys:udhq: ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys". The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government. Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

So the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, would be bad guys. Based on your statement, that would be true.

The fact is that, yes - firearms can function as a check on the power of the government without ever actually being used. Just their existence provides that check. That being said, if things got to be so shiatty that they were physically needed, then their use would be a good thing. That's because the level of oppression would be psychotic.

Now, to the last argument, I might take exception with that. One point to that - the fact that the mere potential for the presence of firearms can cause criminals to think twice. Note that just because the use wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same could be said of crime, especially if it's criminals preying on criminals. However, again, note that when restrictions were removed in areas, homicide rates dropped. That wouldn't be a direct DGU, but it's still a prevention.

As such, I'll stand by my stat ...

The founding fathers had the foresight to "build in" a check on the power of government by overturning it every 4 years, and they did so precisely so our government did not come to be dominated by those who would use force to achieve political power, like you suggest gun owners do (or at least threaten).

You see, there's a reason why we call it the "Revolutionary War", and not a civil war: because by the time it went down, the colonists no longer identified themselves as Englishmen, and that's exactly why the 2nd amendment includes the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."The bold part means you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of defending the federal government AGAINST external threats, not for protecting yourself FROM the federal governments. The government has a long-established monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so if you want to check it's power, you have to do so via elections, like the founding fathers wanted. What you're talking about--replacing, or at least reserving the right to replace democracy with rule by violence--is fascism, and yes, anybody who suggests this as a viable possibility deserves to be classified as a "bad guy", and not a "law-abiding citizen".

As for your statement on guns preventing crime, you can stand by it, but that doesn't make it any less objectively, provable wrong.

Mock26:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing. But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers. The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number. Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers? I know that I would. But they did not explain how they weighted the answers. So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.

mizchief:I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.

I'm not arguing that you don't have an individual right to bear arms, I'm just saying that a lot of gun rights activists seem to think that the 2nd amendment contains an implied right to use those arms against the government, or to use those arms as an instrument of political power, and on top of both of these assumptions being flatly untrue, they are closer to what the founding fathers were fighting against than what they were fighting for.

scotty425:edmo: namatad: Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?

Please please please

I think a really good civil rights lawyer could effectively argue that the fee on FOID cards is in fact a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional.

It's not a poll tax, but it is a tax on the exercise of a civil right. The 24th Amendment makes poll taxes illegal, but there is adequate precedence for banning taxes and fees having to do with firearms. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Comm i ssioner. In that case, it was decided that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. In that and related cases referenced from that page, taxes were imposed on newspapers or newspaper consumables with a direct aim to punish influential newspapers. Following this logic, it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on the means of exercising a civil right.

udhq:mizchief: I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.

I'm not arguing that you don't have an individual right to bear arms, I'm just saying that a lot of gun rights activists seem to think that the 2nd amendment contains an implied right to use those arms against the government, or to use those arms as an instrument of political power, and on top of both of these assumptions being flatly untrue, they are closer to what the founding fathers were fighting against than what they were fighting for.

You really couldn't be more wrong.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

JoanHaus:If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Yes, except, a.) the D.o.I. was written several years prior to the constitution that established the US as a democratic republic, and b.) it has roughly the same standing in American law as the last Harry Potter novel.

udhq:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Yes, except, a.) the D.o.I. was written several years prior to the constitution that established the US as a democratic republic, and b.) it has roughly the same standing in American law as the last Harry Potter novel.

JoanHaus:If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.

It therefore follows that you haven't met very many people to begin with.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing. But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers. The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number. Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers? I know that I would. But they did not explain how they weighted the answers. So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.

Ah, so have an unreasonable burden of proof.

Yes I do. With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings? Do you believe that they are 100% accurate? Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

Mock26:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing. But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers. The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number. Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers? I know that I would. But they did not explain how they weighted the answers. So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.

Ah, so have an unreasonable burden of proof.

Yes I do. With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings? Do you believe that they are 100% accurate? Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

JoanHaus:If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.

None? Oh really? At least 80,000 people would disagree with you. And that is just defensive gun use. Other people, in high stress situations, manage to fend of an attacker without a gun. In fact, not to long ago on the news there was the story of a shop owner who used a baseball bat to fend off a robber with a gun. Even after he was shot in the hip he still kept on attacking the robber.

The actual number of people who successfully use a gun for defensive purposes ranges from 80,000 (Department of Justice) to 2,500,000 (Dr. Kleck). Yeah, that is a damn huge range there, but even going with the Department of Justice's number (which I believe are on the low side) there are roughly 80,000 situations each year where a person not on possibly but actually DID use their weapon in a high stress situation. 80,000. That is a hell of a lot higher than your unfounded and specious claim of "none." Just because you might start crying like a little child and wet yourself in the face of an assailant does not mean that everyone else will.

udhq:Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not. Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing. But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers. The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number. Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers? I know that I would. But they did not explain how they weighted the answers. So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.

Ah, so have an unreasonable burden of proof.

Yes I do. With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings? Do you believe that they are 100% accurate? Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

I did not dismiss the findings. I am merely questioning the accuracy of them. There is a huge difference between the two. Nor do I blindly question them. I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate. You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million!

Also, you forgot to answer my questions. Maybe you missed them. If so, here they are again: Do you believe that they are 100% accurate? Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

udhq:The founding fathers had the foresight to "build in" a check on the power of government by overturning it every 4 years, and they did so precisely so our government did not come to be dominated by those who would use force to achieve political power, like you suggest gun owners do (or at least threaten).

One of their checks was the popular vote and specified terms. That wasn't the only check. Multiple houses, different branches of government, rule of law, etc. The Second Amendment was another.

You see, there's a reason why we call it the "Revolutionary War", and not a civil war: because by the time it went down, the colonists no longer identified themselves as Englishmen, and that's exactly why the 2nd amendment includes the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."The bold part means you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of defending the federal government AGAINST external threats, not for protecting yourself FROM the federal governments. The government has a long-established monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so if you want to check it's power, you have to do so via elections, like the founding fathers wanted. What you're talking about--replacing, or at least reserving the right to replace democracy with rule by violence--is fascism, and yes, anybody who suggests this as a viable possibility deserves to be classified as a "bad guy", and not a "law-abiding citizen".

Your lack of understanding of Constitutional law isn't my problem. Given the writings of the Founders, as well as their actions, it's very clear that they were under no illusions that the government they were setting couldn't fail and result in another revolution. Secondly, it's been clearly demonstrated that the right to bear arms has many components - not just the clause, as you bold. That's one reason among many - clearly not the only one.

Also, nice strawman. No one said rule by violence, just you. It shows that you're not particularly interested in having a debate. The purpose of an armed revolution would never to be installing rule by violence or force. It would be to restore the Republic (maybe you failed Civics or Government, but we don't live in a democracy).

As for your statement on guns preventing crime, you can stand by it, but that doesn't make it any less objectively, provable wrong.

That is the largest failure of a statement you've stated yet. It's clearly proven that firearms prevent crime. The question is do they prevent more crime than they stop. You've demonstrated nothing to prove that this isn't true whereas I, and others, have provided states that demonstrate otherwise.

skozlaw:Dimensio: I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.

You're also more likely to kill a family member by accident and increased gun ownership correlates with increased risk of suicide.

And, of course, none of this takes into account non-fatal injury rates.

Guns are destructive tools. That's all there is to it. Their only inherent purpose is to destroy things. It should hardly be surprising, then, that an inherent risk is associated with their ownership.

The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off. True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.

LAUGHTER OL.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb. Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution. While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.

udhq:ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys". The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government. Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

There are no such things as "gun rights activists". Another of your closet fear monsters.There are only gun grabbers subverting the weak and fear mongered to take political action.The people with guns are law abiding, Constitutionally empowered and the grabbers are the activists.Only one group rewrites history, and manufactures fear to rewrite the Constitution.Whar are activists actively lobbying for less gun control?Over here? Nope. Maybe over there, nope. Well, gee, they were just here, I was told they were.Aww, say it ain't so.

udhq:BraveNewCheneyWorld: The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

Wait, so being independent but producing results that contradict your preconceived worldview were enough to dismiss my earlier link, but INACCURACY is no reason to question yours?

I was asked a specific leading question. I chose to answer that no study will ever be "perfect". Your study on the other hand was from a group that is specifically anti gun. Of course you cannot trust them to be independent as their income stream relies on making guns look bad, or at best, ineffective.

Mock26:I did not dismiss the findings. I am merely questioning the accuracy of them. There is a huge difference between the two. Nor do I blindly question them. I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate. You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million!

Also, you forgot to answer my questions. Maybe you missed them. If so, here they are again: Do you believe that they are 100% accurate? Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

Yes, you are dismissing it. Saying that 80,000 is closer to the mark, when refuting a claim of 2.5 or even 1 million, is nothing short of dismissal. Also, the onus is not on me to prove that the numbers are accurate, it is on you to disprove them. Your attempt at disproving them isn't even evidence, you just spout off about a bunch of theoreticals of why it might not be accurate, but have no proof that your claims are based in reality. Do I think it's 100% accurate? As I stated, no study will be perfect so that is my answer. I believe it's safe to say that the number is in the 1.5 million range, and that 80,000 number is produced by people looking to eliminate any samples that are not just of reasonable doubt, but of any doubt, which is an asinine way to handle data of this nature.

seadoo2006:The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off. True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.LAUGHTER OL.

It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb. Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution. While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.

Why is it dumb? Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined. If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me. However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens. To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor. Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do. If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action. I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there. By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there. Nor do any of the normal shops I hit. So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.

ronaprhys:seadoo2006: The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off. True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.LAUGHTER OL.

It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb. Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution. While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.

Why is it dumb? Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined. If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me. However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens. To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor. Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do. If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action. I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there. By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there. Nor do any of the normal shops I hit. So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.

1) Yep ... most common form of penile injury after fracture is gunshot amputation ... remember that the next time you holster up. Don't believe me or the link? Talk to some urologists or ER nurses (like my SO is). More common than you'd think.

2) In Ohio, yes, it's an automatic 1st Degree Misdemeanor ... no prior warning beyond the sign is required. One of my friends was recently arrested in a CVS while carrying ... Off-duty saw him and it holstered under his shirt and arrested him on the spot.

(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.

seadoo2006:ronaprhys: seadoo2006: The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off. True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.LAUGHTER OL.

It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb. Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution. While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.

Why is it dumb? Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined. If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me. However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens. To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor. Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do. If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action. I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there. By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there. Nor do any of the normal shops I hit. So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.

1) Yep ... most common form of penile injury after fracture is gunshot amputation ... remember that the next time you holster up. Don't believe me or the link? Talk to some urologists or ER nurses (like my SO is). More common than you'd think.